On Victims of Abuse by Clergy Not Quite Catholic

Young Catholics' Perspective on The Catholic Church Scandal. Ft. The Crunch
New Catholic Generation | 29.XI.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vvpYOUsDi4

As to "il piccolo italiano" I responded to nothing he said, because it was perfect and needed no response.

I

6:34 Doing maths at "over the last 50, 60 or so years"

2018
0060
1958

Would I be right in nearly all being post 1958 and all post 1950?

Those happen to be significant dates. 1958, death of Pius XII and you get what nearly all Sedevacantists consider as Antipopes publically shown as Popes.

1950, the year in which he issed Humani Generis, making a "Honorius" move about the heresy of Adam bodily descending from other living organisms. (You know, like Honorius refused to condemn Monotheletism).

II

16:29 St Giovanni Bosco and Domenico Savio were close.

I am not saying in a sexual way, one of them is canonised by Pope Pius XI (even if it was on April 1) but like "the dynamic duo" of Catholic pastoral back then in Turin area (I think they were in Torino).

Supposing everyone back then had been on the outlook for "special focus" and "some kind of disordered relation" ... could their friendship have existed? I presume that canonisation is valid.

Are you sure the kind of measures that the classes are promoting are not part of what the devil has planned through this destructive work?

Also, when everyone is on the outlook for something, sometimes innocent people are accused of that something. In France or Belgium, two priests (or Vatican II clergy, their ordinations are presumably not valid) have committed suicide over being, presumably falsely accused.

Btw, considering how many Anticatholic people who are presumably reading me, I expect some will try to pour smut on Domenico Savio - but I still think it needs to be written. Shrinks are NOT our experts in moral theology and also NOT our experts even on how to protect the innocent against this, that or sundry person who would be the real guilty one.

As you mentioned it being a "no no" for an adult and a child (unrelated as parent or uncle, I presume you mean) to spend time together alone, while I was abused by school mates in another way - harrassment, but really severe - a man whom I later came to distrust on other issues actually did comfort me while he was driving me in a car. He can have contributed to saving me from getting too depressed. He did cheer me up. If I hadn't back then been responsive to adults cheering me up (even if it was a childish trait and arguably has harmed me socially later), school with those other guys would perhaps have killed me, and "perhaps" is perhaps not the right word.

Patrick Neve

Are you suggesting if we see a man spending inordinate amounts of alone time with a young boy.....we should assume he's the next St. John Bosco?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No.

But St. John Bosco arguably was spending lots of time with him.

And arguably it couldn't have happened in the climate of hysteria this crisis is promoting.

One hint about abuse NOT being the case would at least be "do they have a legitimate common interest" (in St John Bosco's and Domenico Savio's case : saving souls and sanctifying themselves).

And "inordinate amounts of time" cannot simply be determined from the amount of time. Could a common interest require it?

III

18:46 "so that victimization of children doesn't happen again"

You are aware school and harrassment is a more numerous victimization in numbers of victims than sexual predators, aren't you?

Are you standing up against school compulsion?

Some of its victims include suicides who killed others first.

And that means Cassie Bernall along with Klebold.

Tatiana Federoff

Uh yes. All violence is against the fifth commandment and is an evil to be fought against. I'm homeschooled, Hans, so of course I don't like school compulsion. But this video is for the specific abuses of the Catholic Church and how we can be sure that children and vulnerable adults aren't abused in the Church, not about school safety.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

after liking previous comm.

I am glad at least one of you steps up for homeschooling.

Some don't.

I was specifically thinking of one recently "canonised" man who in "Gaudium et Spes" considered teachers as representatives of mankind / humanity to their pupils ....

Tatiana Federoff

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I mean, they should be. Schools are great... when they are good.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Teachers should be the complements of parents on the parent's terms.

Not elevated to "representatives of humanity".

School safety 101 : don't make it compulsory.

IV

19:20 "someone more professional than me needs to step in"

Horror of horrors.

An already abused person confided to the potential abuse of "mental health professionals"!

Is that what they teach you?

20:25 "that counsellor can work through with them until they are ready to ... report it to authorities"

Can stories be deformed during such a process of counselling?

In the Kavanaugh hearing, someone said she had papers from after some time of counselling stating she had already back then, way before Kavanaugh was nominated for Supreme Court, stated he had made a bad move.

Well, guess what his lawyers asked her to do? Provide the papers from earlier on in the counselling.

Stories and memories get deformed during such processes.

Other case, someone who had spent time in mental hospital for murder with cannibalism made a confession with details and was ... acquitted. Why? Because the details weren't accurate. What had happened? Well, during the counselling process ... he had confessed to things that didn't happen.

One theory (the official one) : he was attention seeking and the counsellors didn't get that. Confessing to a gory murder with cannibalism gave him a sense of power.

Other theory (my own unprofessional suspicion) : counselling actually warped his memories.

So, in the recipe you forward, you could be promoting injustice.

Patrick Neve

All I'm saying is I'm not qualified to help someone cope with having been abused.

This comment

was before two of mine already above:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20:25 "that counsellor can work ..." etc....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

So, in the recipe you forward, you could be promoting injustice.

Patrick Neve

@Hans-Georg Lundahl im not quite sure what you are trying to say

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Check your actual words.

Click the time signature 19:20 or for context 19:10 ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"im not quite sure what you are trying to say"

In case police are to be involved, it should best not be after counselling has had time to deform memories.

I was actually continuing my previous comment and not responding to yours which is only one minute older than mine and I didn't see you had answered first.

"All I'm saying is" This is where I ask you to check your words at 19:15 or 19:20

On Big Bang in a Catholic context

New Teenage Saint, "Yoked" Bishop Barron, and more! | Catholic Social Media News
New Catholic Generation | 25.VII.2018 (St. James' Day)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJBJ8sRM7Kw

I

Alanson Cleveland

A distinction must be made between which big bang theory you are talking about. As far I have been told, Fr. Georges Lemaître's version said that God is the one who started the big bang. The new atheist big bang theory which is what most people know about says that the big bang was started by a small little pin thing or something.

Just trying to prevent comment wars.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2:11 I am Catholic, I do not accept the Big Bang theory, and accepting it as such contradicts, not indeed "creatorem coeli et terrae" but - given Genesis 1 is a prophecy given to Moses - qui loquutus est per prophetas".

Alanson Cleveland

Read my comment up above.

Rodney Burton

The Big Bang theory in no way contradicts Genesis 1; indeed, the scientifically determined order of creation follows it with great accuracy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How many days before creation of man is Big Bang supposed to have occurred?

@Alanson Cleveland, did you note which article of the faith I saw direct issue with?

Rodney Burton

Hans-Georg Lundahl your concerns are not shared by the Vatican.

Alanson Cleveland

Hans-Georg Lundahl No I didn't pay attention to what you said. For that I apologize. I am not really sure, but what I think you are trying to say is that because God spoke through Moses about the creation of the universe, that anything that anyone says about how the universe was created after Moses is wrong because they are not a prophet and therefore cannot know anything about how the universe was created. Correct me if I am wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Alanson Cleveland : yes you are wrong.

What you think I am trying to say:

"because God spoke through Moses about the creation of the universe, that anything that anyone says about how the universe was created after Moses is wrong because they are not a prophet and therefore cannot know anything about how the universe was created."

No, I am saying: because God spoke through Moses about the creation of the universe, that anything that anyone says contradicting Moses on any item is wrong, because Moses was a prophet.

Kent Hovind has said lots after Moses, and mostly he isn't wrong - mostly also he is not even by mistake and despite his intentions contradicting anything Moses said.

@Rodney Burton : you mean the Vatican occupied by probable Antipope Francis? Previously by probable Antipope Benedict after probable Antipope John Paul II?

[Back to Alanson:]

It is for instance possible that Enuma Elish is older than Moses by perhaps a century.

If so, the reason why Enuma Elish is wrong where it is wrong is not its being said after Moses (by hypothesis it was said before him), nor that author of Enuma Elish was no prophet of the true God. The reason is rather, Enuma Elish is on items contradicted by ... Moses.

Apology accepted, btw, sorry for being too tired to say that at once.

Alanson Cleveland

Hans-Georg Lundahl Then I have to ask. How does the big bang theory contradict the word of God?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Again, how many days does Big Bang Theory put between "beginning" and creation of Man?

Alanson Cleveland

I don't know. Millions of years?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Billions.

Now read Mark 10:6. </dl>

... on Modern Cosmology vs Angelic Movers of Celestial Bodies

Video

Catholics Watch & Respond to Star Size Comparison
New Catholic Generation | Ajoutée le 8 mai 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xumK4UsGFgs

My comments

in order of chronology by timesignatures in video.

Opinions differ:

that of the video commented on in video and that of those commenting on it being Modern Cosmology, without the shade of a doubt, and mine being Celestial bodies are most of them 1 light day up and moved by angels.

I

Would Renee and Joseph and the rest like to take a look at this minority report on stellar sizes?

New blog on the kid : Stellar Radiuses (If Sphere of Fix Stars is One Light Day Up)
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2018/02/stellar-radiuses-if-sphere-of-fix-stars.html

II

8:29 "we haven't mastered space travel"

Good one, if you think that the message is about life on exoplanets.

You might like this story:

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Year 10 950 ARC (After Rocket Crash)
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2017/09/year-10-950-arc-after-rocket-crash.html

III

8:43 "Earth is not the centre of the universe"

Hmmm ... sounds like a very good reason to including billions of light years like sizes ...

Earth being immobile centre of universe and not even turning around itself would - on that view - involve movements of several billion light years' radius in the time of 24 hours.

A speed in which very distant stars would perhaps not be very wellhandled ...

Is this the speed Geocentrism of necessity involves?

No, since the stellar distances and therefore also stellar sizes (any calculated size is calculated from distance and apparent size, right?) are themselves calculated from Heliocentrism, via Stellar Parallax.

The 0.76 arc seconds difference of angle of proxima Centauri from December to June, not as directly observed, but as observed in relation to stars surrounding proxima Centauri and presumed to be further off, is in Heliocentrism presumed to be due to Earth moving between December and June, while proxima Centauri is supposed to be still.

Now, if proxima Centauri were exactly one light day up, if the 0.76 arc seconds of "parallax" and the broader picture of c. 20 arc seconds of "aberration of starlight" (measured in itself, unlike the 0.76 arc seconds) are due to an angel moveing each of those stars, what would we see differently?

Nothing.

What would we conclude differently?

Well, check a full Latin version of the Thomistic proof for God's existence in Summa contra Gentiles, book one or two, and whichever it was chapter 13.

IV

9:47 "getting to Heaven"

Which is where?

On St Thomas' view, the abode of faithful angels, saints, Our Lord Jesus in His Human form is Empyraean Heaven, just above the sphere of the fix stars.

[Someone might say:] "Heaven's not material!"

Pure spirituality is cheating. Christ is present in the sacrament, not without the dimensions of His body, but without these dimensions touching our space which is instead touched by the dimensions of what used to be and still tastes like bread.

But in Heaven, the dimensions of His body do indeed touch the surrounding space, so, Heaven is not purely spiritual.

Also when we get there just after death, most of us (the reverse perspective to that of St Paul who concentrated on "we who are still alive"), we don't come in bodies.

But, when Resurrection of the Flesh happens, we will be having our bodies again. Up there.

7 Day Adv solve it by saying we will actually be living on Earth after reigning from a a specific place in Heaven not yet there since before the Resurrection of the Just.

But we are not 7 D Adv, right?

So, Heaven is a material place and we will having bodies there, if we get there and don't squeeze in Hell (centre of Earth) ... if it is just beyond the fix stars ... how far are they?

V

12:37 My perspective on the beauty of a billions of light years big universe is ... God wanted even the errors to have some beauty.

God has a plan, it involves a Great Deception, that much Satan earned by Adam's disobedience to God.

Now, there is beauty to a sentence, also erroneous, but ... inspiring : "we all live in the gutter, but some of us look at the stars"

It is arguable, while God allows the Great Deception, it is not allowed to be "all gutter" and "no stars". Therefore He has planned what it would be allowed to involve.

(Didn't I give some reference for the quote about Lady Winderemere's Fan being a kind of King Arthur's attitude about Queen Guinevere, minus the royal and historical setting?)

VI

14:17 "everything seems to be going around us"

Well, as long as there is no proof positive to the contrary, that is at least preliminary proof that is what everything visible (Empyreal Heaven beyond fix stars not being visible) is doing.

VII

15:28 "and that Jesus did go to these other life forms and preach"

One such group would be 7 D Adv.

They take it as revealed in private revelation to Ellen Gould White.

As I recall it, planets we named thousands of years ago ("our solar system" except I don't consider the word choice correct, it reflects Heliocentric ideology) were included in those where Ellen Gould White pretends that Jesus went to preach to other creatures.

Now some of these seem honestly fairly lifeless by closeup pictures ...

VIII

15:57 I would most definitely not count Krishna as Jesus appearing in a Hindoo culture.

I suspect he was a pre-Flood saint (probably the flute player among the children of Lamech, see Genesis 4) who was unusually peaceful (acc to Mahabharata) in a time when And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times, (Genesis 6:5), but he was definitely not Jesus appearing to Hindoos.

IX

16:02 - 16:09 "Padre Pio said to a reporter when asked about extraterrestrial life he said it would be an injustice to God's glory to limit His glory to this planet alone."

Reference welcome, if any.

16:12 "so he thinks that there are planets that"

The answer, as given, was evasive. We do not know it was that he meant, it is possible he was "leading the reporter on" without directly lying and letting him think it was that he meant.

16:15 "just like ours with beings that haven't fallen"

With unfallen only rational or intelligent creatures, a globe would not be "just like ours". Was that part of the quote or not?

16:25 "and I'm guessing"

Ah, ok, you are interpolating what padre Pio could have meant by initial quote.

There is another solution. Angels do give glory to God. Angels do move celestial bodies - this latter is not from padre Pio, but from a whole list of Church men, including St Thomas Aquinas, Nicolas of Cusa, I think ... no, I did not find Nicolas of Lyra, but on the other hand I did find Suarez and St Bonaventura.

St Thomas says it is of the faith that angels don't move celestial bodies only but also bodies down here, as he is quoted by Riccioli:

Sed placet S. Thomæ sententiam adnotare, qui q.6 de Potentia art.3. inquit : Fidei autem sententia est, quòd Angeli non solùm corpora cælestia suo imperio moueant localiter, sed etiam alia corpora Deo ordinante & permittente.

Reference being: Almagestum Novum. Liber nonus. De Mundi Systemate
Sectio secunda de motibus cælorum
CAPVT I. An Cæli aut Sidera Moueantur ab Intelligentijs, An verò ab intrinsecò à propria Forma vel Natura
and the quote is given on page 248 in the edition dedicated to Honoré II, Prince of Monaco (other editions could have other pagination, the volume is here Almagesti Novi Pars Posterior Tomi Primi)

St Thomas is further quoted from opusculum 10 art 3 and opusculum 11 art 2 as saying he doesn't recall reading any saint or philosopher denying that celestial bodies are moved by spiritual creatures and that on his view it would have to be either God directly or God through (giving orders to) angels, and he prefers the latter, at least outside miracles, due to the ordered degrees he takes from St Denys of the Areopagus.

Obviously, this solution is also well suited for God's glory to be there in the heavens, and either this or stars having souls (which Riccioli had dealt with in an earlier section, he's not repeating it and therefore I don't know what authorities would favour it, except I know from elsewhere St Augustine was neutral on that question) fit with certain passages of the Bible.

When you look up at the stars, you can say : "there are some guys who hated the guts of Sisera's army" - read Judges 5:19-20

[19] The kings came and fought, the kings of Chanaan fought in Thanach by the waters of Mageddo, and yet they took no spoils. [20] War from heaven was made against them, the stars remaining in their order and courses fought against Sisara.

I repeat last sentence : the stars remaining in their order and courses fought against Sisara.

Aha ... so, either the stars and planets in and of their own souls, if any, or the angels moving celestial bodies showed intentional action at a distance that time ...?

Well, can't just be big balls of gas then, however pretty these are!

Oh, the edition of Almagestum Novum is actually available online ... here is the page:

Almagesti Novi Pars Posterior Tomi Primi, p. 248
https://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/pageview/141308

16:55 [25] But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

This is certainly a reason to be attentive to Church Tradition not directly in Bible.

It is arguably a reason to be open for things neither in Bible nor Church tradition, but not contradicted.

But, it is not a reason to neglect what is actually in the Bible and Church tradition, as Judges 5:19-20 or as St Thomas Aquinas' view on angelic movers.